Preventing Household Bankruptcy: The One-Third Rule in Financial Planning with Mathematical Validation and Game-Theoretic Insights
Abstract
1. Introduction
1.1. Background and Motivation
1.2. Research Gap
- risk minimization in financial crises,
- game-theoretic stability in multi-person households, and
- behavioral biases that affect financial decision-making.
1.3. Broader Applicability
- Mathematical Validation: We rigorously derive the 1/3 Rule using Lagrangian optimization and risk models, demonstrating that equal allocation maximizes financial utility while minimizing bankruptcy probability.
- Game-Theoretic Stability: We prove that the one-third allocation emerges as a Nash equilibrium in individual financial decisions and a Shapley-optimal strategy in dual-income and multigenerational households.
- Empirical Evidence: Using U.S. Census and Federal Reserve data, we show that households following the 1/3 Rule experience a 20-30% reduction in bankruptcy risk, 25% faster debt repayment, and an increase in emergency savings over five years.
- Behavioral Finance Integration: This study incorporates cognitive biases, such as loss aversion, overconfidence, and mental accounting, to explain how financial behavior deviates from optimal decision-making and how the 1/3 Rule counteracts these tendencies.
- Technological Extensions: We explore the integration of AI-powered budgeting assistants, blockchain-based financial tracking, and smart contracts to automate adherence to the 1/3 Rule.
1.4. Income Variability and the Applicability of the 1/3 Rule
1.5. The Role of Financial Discipline in Mitigating Bankruptcy Risks
1.6. Overview of the 1/3 Financial Rule: Allocating Income into Debt Repayment, Savings, and Living Expenses
1.6.1. Allocating One-Third for Debt Repayment
1.6.2. Allocating One-Third for Savings
1.6.3. Allocating One-Third for Living Expenses
1.7. Benefits of the 1/3 Financial Rule
1.8. Historical Development and Theoretical Foundations of the 1/3 Rule
2. Literature Review
2.1. Existing Research on Bankruptcy Prevention
2.1.1. Game-Theoretic Approaches to Financial Decision-Making
2.1.2. Behavioral Finance Perspectives on Income Allocation
2.1.3. Behavioral Bias Mitigation Using 1/3 Rule
2.2. Gaps in the Existing Literature
3. Theoretical Foundations
3.1. Notation and Key Terms
3.2. Mathematical Foundations
- 1.
- Continuity: is continuous and twice differentiable, reflecting the smooth trade-offs households make in financial allocation decisions
- 2.
- Monotonicity: , , , meaning households derive more utility from increased resources in any category.
- 3.
- Diminishing returns: , , , representing the empirically observed phenomenon that excessive allocation to any single category results in diminishing benefits
- Reflect realistic trade-offs that households face in financial decision-making.
- Simplify mathematical analysis, enabling the use of optimization techniques.
- Ensure that the model provides meaningful and interpretable results.
3.3. Risk Framework
- is the debt-to-income ratio
- is the savings-to-expense ratio
- Φ is the standard normal cumulative distribution function (CDF), and
- are coefficients calibrated to reflect risk sensitivities.
- -
- A lower indicates a manageable debt burden, while a higher reflects strong financial resilience.
- -
- The standard normal CDF is used to model the cumulative probability of exceeding a risk threshold.
- Risk Reduction: Diversifies financial efforts to minimize the risk of financial instability.
- Simplified Decision-Making: Provides a straightforward guideline for managing income, avoiding complex trade-offs.
- Long-Term Stability: Ensures resources are consistently allocated to immediate needs, debt reduction, and future savings.
3.4. Joint Effect of Income Uncertainty and Market Volatility
- represents income volatility at time t
- represents market volatility at time t
- are sensitivity coefficients for these volatilities
- is the initial income
- represents the expected income growth rate
- is a Wiener process capturing random fluctuations
- is the income volatility parameter
- r is the expected return rate
- is market volatility
- is another Wiener process
- Higher income volatility () increases optimal savings allocation above 1/3
- Greater market volatility () leads to more conservative investment strategies
- The correlation between income and market shocks () affects optimal buffer sizes
4. Game Theoretic Analysis of the 1/3 Financial Rule
4.1. Formal Game Structure
- is the set of players (household members)
- is the strategy space, where represents the set of possible financial allocation strategies for player i
- is the vector of utility functions for each player
4.2. Single-Agent Optimization
4.3. Multi-Agent Household Model
- (two players)
- is the characteristic function representing the total household utility
- Example (Dual-Income).
Extending to Multi-Generational Household
- Individual contributions (): Each member’s income
- Scale benefits (): Savings from sharing resources
- Coordination costs (): Effort required to manage joint finances
- Scale benefits might include shared utilities and groceries
- Coordination costs could involve time spent on family financial meetings
- Individual contributions would include both monetary income and non-monetary contributions
- Individual Optimality: Each member’s personal allocation satisfies Equations (24)–(26)
- Collective Optimality: The household’s allocation maximizes while ensuring coalition stability
- Working adults maintain personal 1/3 allocations
- Pooled household expenses are distributed according to the 1/3 Rule
- Both levels benefit from risk diversification and stability
4.4. Strategic Interactions and Deviation Analysis
4.5. Dynamic Analysis of Financial Planning Games
- Short-term shocks (medical bills, car repairs),
- Medium-term transitions (childbirth, job changes),
- Long-term goals (saving for college, retirement).
- Current financial state (): Savings balance, debt levels, and income
- Financial decisions (): How income is allocated
- External conditions (): Economic factors like interest rates
- The 1/3 Rule provides a robust baseline strategy even as circumstances change
- Deviations should be systematic and based on specific circumstances
- Long-term adherence to the rule, with appropriate adjustments, promotes financial stability
4.6. Key Insights
- The 1/3 Rule provides a robust strategy that minimizes individual and collective financial risks.
- Cooperative strategies converge to the 1/3 allocation across various household structures.
- Deviations from the rule incur significant strategic penalties.
4.7. Practical Feasibility for Low-Income Households
5. Validation Metrics
5.1. Comprehensive Risk Modeling
5.2. Systemic Risks and Their Impact
5.3. Stress Testing Under Extreme Economic Conditions
- Debt Management: Households using the 1/3 Rule reduced debt obligations by 25% faster than those following alternative strategies, even under severe economic pressures.
- Savings Preservation: Emergency funds built through the rule allowed families to cover six months of essential expenses despite reduced incomes during crises.
- Default Mitigation: Adherence to the 1/3 Rule reduced default rates by 40% compared to households with ad hoc or unstructured financial strategies.
5.4. Implementation Challenges in Diverse Economic Environments
5.5. Portfolio Theory Integration
Practical Implications
6. Empirical Validation Using U.S. Census Data
6.1. Data Selection and Classification
- Categories Based on U.S. Census Data:
- Household Types:
- Single-Income Households: These households often have limited income and higher financial stress.
- Dual-Income Households: With higher combined incomes, these households typically exhibit greater financial stability but also face significant obligations, such as mortgages and childcare.
- Multigenerational Households: These households pool incomes but incur additional caregiving expenses, presenting unique financial dynamics.
- Income Levels:
- Low Income: Below 30% of median household income, often facing severe financial constraints.
- Middle Income: Between 30% and 80% of median household income, representing the majority of working households.
- High Income: Above 80% of median household income, often with higher savings potential but complex financial planning needs.
- Key Financial Metrics:
- Debt-to-Income (DTI) Ratio: A measure of household debt relative to income, indicating repayment capacity.
- Savings Rate: The proportion of income allocated to savings, crucial for long-term financial stability.
- Bankruptcy Rates: A critical indicator of financial distress.
6.2. Data Collection and Sample Selection
- Sources:
- U.S. Census Bureau: Wealth, Asset Ownership & Debt Tables (2018–2022): Provided aggregated data on household-level income, savings, debt, and net worth by demographic and income categories. Panels included approximately 30,000 to 40,000 interviewed households per wave, representing the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population. The sample is stratified to ensure representation across income and wealth percentiles (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023).
- Consumer Expenditure Survey (CEX): Integrated quarterly Interview Survey data from 2018 to 2022 to estimate total annual household expenditures. Household-level records were matched to Wealth, Asset Ownership & Debt Tables-based income quintiles for consistent categorization (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023).
- Derived Pseudo-Panel: CEX and Census datasets were merged at the income quintile and year level to produce a pseudo-longitudinal dataset tracking savings, debt, and expenditure dynamics across a five-year term.
- Inclusion Criteria:
- Included households reporting positive annual income and complete data on debt and expenditures.
- Excluded households with extreme income or debt outliers (top and bottom 2% of the respective distributions).
- Grouped households by income quintile using census thresholds, with additional segmentation by rule adherence status for comparative analysis.
6.3. Longitudinal Studies
- Bankruptcy Risk Reduction: Households adhering to the 1/3 Rule experienced at least a 58% decrease in bankruptcy risk compared to baseline, based on modeled estimates incorporating debt-to-income ratios and emergency savings thresholds.
- Debt Clearance: Median estimated debt repayment timelines for high-debt households reduced by 20%, with households clearing high-interest liabilities more effectively.
- Savings Growth: A typical household accumulated emergency funds exceeding six months of living expenses within five years.
Limitations
- Reliance on self-reported survey data for savings rates.
- Simulations assume fixed income; real-world volatility (e.g., medical emergencies) may alter outcomes.
6.4. Simulation of Financial Outcomes for Different Household Types Adhering to the 1/3 Rule
- Scenario 1: Single-Income Households (Median Income: USD 41,000)
- Income Allocation:
- –
- Debt Repayment: USD 13,667
- –
- Savings: USD 13,667
- –
- Living Expenses: USD 13,667
- Debt Reduction: USD 63,000 in debt could be cleared in approximately 4.6 years.
- Savings Growth: Total savings in 5 years would reach USD 74,431 (compounded at 4%).
- Bankruptcy Risk: Modeled bankruptcy risk reduced by approximately 30% relative to a typical household with similar income and debt profile.
- Scenario 2: Dual-Income Households (Median Income: USD 90,000)
- Income Allocation:
- –
- Debt Repayment: USD 30,000
- –
- Savings: USD 30,000
- –
- Living Expenses: USD 30,000
- Debt Reduction: USD 120,000 in debt could be eliminated in 4 years.
- Savings Growth: Total savings in 5 years would reach USD 162,486 (compounded at 4%).
- Bankruptcy Risk: Reduced by approximately 25%.
- Scenario 3: Multigenerational Households (Median Income: USD 72,000)
- Income Allocation:
- –
- Debt Repayment: USD 24,000
- –
- Savings: USD 24,000
- –
- Living Expenses: USD 24,000
- Debt Reduction: USD 105,000 in debt could be eliminated in approximately 4.4 years.
- Savings Growth: Total savings in 5 years would reach USD 129,800 (compounded at 4%).
- Bankruptcy Risk: Reduced by approximately 20%.
Comparative Financial Stability Outcomes
- 1/3 Rule vs. Alternative Strategies
6.5. Comparative Analysis
- 50/30/20 Rule: Allocating only 20% of income to savings and debt repayment left households vulnerable to financial shocks, particularly those with high debt loads.
- 70/20/10 Rule: This strategy, favoring higher spending on living expenses, often failed to create adequate buffers for emergencies or long-term planning.
6.6. Real-World Financial Outcomes Modeled Through the 1/3 Rule
- A middle-income household carrying USD 60,000 in credit card debt could, by following the 1/3 Rule, feasibly eliminate this debt within five years while also building a USD 50,000 emergency fund. This outcome is consistent with observed trends among 1/3 Rule adherents, who demonstrated high annual savings relative to debt and strong financial resilience.
- A dual-income household earning approximately USD 90,000 annually may, under consistent application of the 1/3 Rule, reduce its debt-to-income ratio by 25% and double its retirement savings over a 10-year period. These modeled projections reflect behaviors and financial improvements identified in the analysis of middle-income adherent groups.
6.7. Key Takeaways
- Accelerating debt repayment and reducing interest burdens.
- Building significant savings buffers for emergencies and long-term goals.
- Ensuring financial resilience during economic downturns and unexpected events.
6.8. Global Perspective: Cross-Cultural Analysis with Real-World Data
7. Practical Implementation Framework
7.1. Assessment
7.2. Customization
7.3. Implementation
7.4. Adaptation
7.5. Measurement
8. Technological Extensions of the 1/3 Financial Rule
8.1. AI and ML Models for Personalized Financing
8.2. Blockchain-Based Financial Tracking and Smart Contracts
8.3. Feasibility, Privacy, and Cost-Benefit Considerations
8.3.1. Implementation Challenges and User Adoption
8.3.2. Privacy and Data Governance
- End-to-end encryption: Ensuring that financial data remains secure and protected against unauthorized access.
- User-controlled consent mechanisms: Households should have full control over their data-sharing preferences, with options to opt in or out of AI-driven insights and blockchain-based tracking.
- Decentralized identity solutions: Implementing blockchain-based authentication methods that allow users to verify financial transactions without compromising their personal information.
8.3.3. Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Reduction in bankruptcy rates.
- Lower financial stress and improved debt repayment outcomes.
- Enhanced savings growth and adherence to structured financial plans.
8.4. Future Research and Pilot Testing
- Conducting feasibility studies to compare different AI budgeting algorithms and blockchain architectures in financial management.
- Implementing pilot programs with a representative sample of households to assess user experience, financial outcomes, and adherence to the 1/3 Rule.
- Establishing collaborative partnerships with financial institutions and regulatory bodies to ensure compliance with legal standards and scalability.
- Evaluating adaptive AI models capable of dynamically adjusting budget allocations based on macroeconomic indicators such as inflation, interest rates, and employment trends.
9. Policy Implications
9.1. Promoting Structured Financial Strategies Through Policy and Education
9.2. Integrating the 1/3 Rule into Policy and Education
10. Limitations
11. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Appendix A.1. Derivation of Optimal Allocation Strategy
Appendix A.1.1. Step 1: Express DTI and SER
Appendix A.1.2. Step 2: Incorporate Uncertainty
Appendix A.1.3. Step 3: Risk-Adjusted Optimization
Appendix A.1.4. Step 4: First-Order Conditions
Appendix A.1.5. Step 5: Risk Adjustment Terms
Appendix A.1.6. Step 5a: Verification of Adjustment Terms
- Zero-sum property:This ensures the budget constraint continues to hold.
- Quadratic dependence on volatility: The adjustments are proportional to squared volatilities ( and ), reflecting that risk adjustments should be symmetric for both positive and negative volatility.
- Relative scaling: The terms are scaled by the sensitivity parameters (, , , ) from the original bankruptcy risk function, ensuring consistency with our risk model.
Appendix A.1.7. Step 5b: Transition to Optimal Allocation
- For debt allocation:
- For savings allocation:
- For expenses allocation:
Appendix A.1.8. Step 6: Final Solution
- It preserves the total budget constraint:
- It increases savings allocation when either income or market volatility increases
- It symmetrically reduces both debt and expenses to fund the increased savings buffer
- The adjustments are proportional to the level of uncertainty in the system
Appendix B
Derivation of the Quadratic Penalty Function
- 1.
- Small deviations result in proportionally small penalties
- 2.
- Large deviations are disproportionately costly
- 3.
- The penalty grows continuously and smoothly with deviation size
References
- Agarwal, S., Driscoll, J. C., Gabaix, X., & Laibson, D. (2009). The age of reason: Financial decisions over the life cycle. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2, 51–117. [Google Scholar]
- Agarwal, S., & Mazumder, B. (2013). Cognitive abilities and household financial decision making. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(1), 193–207. [Google Scholar]
- Aladangady, A., Bricker, J., Chang, A. C., Goodman, S., Krimmel, J., Moore, K. B., Reber, S., Henriques Volz, A., & Windle, R. A. (2023). Changes in U.S. family finances from 2019 to 2022: Evidence from the survey of consumer finances. (Federal Reserve Bulletin). Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. [CrossRef]
- Anderson, R., Smith, J., & Wilson, K. (2023). Optimal control theory in financial planning. Journal of Mathematical Finance, 15(3), 234–256. [Google Scholar]
- Annabi, A., Breton, M., & François, P. (2012). Game theoretic analysis of negotiations under bankruptcy. European Journal of Operational Research, 221, 603–613. [Google Scholar]
- Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140. [Google Scholar]
- Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2001). Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 261–292. [Google Scholar]
- Barberis, N., & Thaler, R. (2003). A survey of behavioral finance. In G. Constantinides, M. Harris, & R. M. Stulz (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of finance (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 1053–1128). Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
- BBVA Research. (2024). Argentina: Inflation recorded 2.7% mom in december and an annual rate of 117.8% for 2024. Available online: https://www.bbvaresearch.com/en/publicaciones/argentina-inflation-recorded-27-mom-in-december-and-an-annual-rate-of-1178-for-2024/ (accessed on 29 January 2025).
- Beal Cohen, A. A., Muneepeerakul, R., & Kiker, G. (2021). Intra-group decision-making in agent-based models. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 17677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. (2007). Heuristics and biases in retirement savings behavior. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(3), 81–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, A., Collins, J. M., Schmeiser, M., & Urban, C. (2014). State mandated financial education and the credit behavior of young adults. (Techical Report No. 2014-68). Finance and Economics Discussion Series, Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs, Federal Reserve Board. Available online: https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2014/201468/201468pap.pdf (accessed on 23 December 2024).
- Cagetti, M. (2003). Wealth accumulation over the life cycle and precautionary savings. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 21(3), 339–353. [Google Scholar]
- Carlson, D. G. (1992). Claims & opinions an exchange of views: Game theory and bankruptcy reorganizations. (Technical Report). Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Available online: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=faculty-articles (accessed on 23 December 2024).
- Carroll, C. D., & Samwick, A. A. (1997). The nature of precautionary wealth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 40(1), 41–71. [Google Scholar]
- Christelis, D., Georgarakos, D., Jappelli, T., & van Rooij, M. (2020). Consumption uncertainty and precautionary saving. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 102(1), 148–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cobb, C. W., & Douglas, P. H. (1928). A theory of production. American Economic Review, 18(1), 139–165. [Google Scholar]
- Dzhabarov, C., Zigraiova, D., & Horv’ath, R. (2021). Gender differences in intra-household financial decision-making. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(10), 469. [Google Scholar]
- Experian. (2024). 2024 State of credit report. Available online: https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/consumer-credit-review/ (accessed on 27 December 2024).
- Federal Reserve Board. (2024). Economic well-being of u.s. households in 2023. (Technical Report). Federal Reserve Board. Available online: https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2023-report-economic-well-being-us-households-202405.pdf (accessed on 8 January 2025).
- Financial Conduct Authority. (2014). Consumer credit and consumers in vulnerable circumstances. (Technical Report). Financial Conduct Authority. Available online: https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/research/consumer-credit-customers-vulnerable-circumstances.pdf (accessed on 26 December 2024).
- Fitch Ratings. (2023, September 12). Proposed credit card interest rate cap is credit negative for brazilian fis. Available online: https://www.fitchratings.com/research/banks/proposed-credit-card-interest-rate-cap-is-credit-negative-for-brazilian-fis-12-09-2023 (accessed on 6 January 2025).
- Friedman, M. (1957). A theory of the consumption function. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Gourinchas, P. O., & Parker, J. A. (2002). Consumption over the life cycle. Econometrica, 70(1), 47–89. [Google Scholar]
- Gross, T., Kluender, R., Liu, F., Notowidigdo, M. J., & Wang, J. (2021). The economic consequences of bankruptcy reform. American Economic Review, 111(7), 2309–2341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2011). The determinants of attitudes towards strategic default on mortgages. (Technical Report). European University Institute, Northwestern University and University of Chicago. Available online: https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/sapienza/htm/guiso_sapienza_zingales_strategicdefault.pdf (accessed on 23 December 2024).
- Heathcote, J., & Perri, F. (2018). Wealth and volatility. The Review of Economic Studies, 85(4), 2173–2213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Himmelstein, D. U., Lawless, R. M., Thorne, D., Foohey, P., & Woolhandler, S. (2019). Medical bankruptcy: Still common despite the Affordable Care Act. American Journal of Public Health, 109(3), 431–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- IMF. (2023). Employer-based financial wellness programs: A strategy for household stability. (IMF Working Papers; Vol. 29, pp. 1–25). IMF. [Google Scholar]
- IMF, Monetary and Capital Markets Department. (2022, July 20). Germany: Financial system stability assessment. (Technical Report). IMF, Monetary and Capital Markets Department. Available online: https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/002/2022/231/article-A001-en.xml (accessed on 13 January 2025).
- International Monetary Fund. (2023, October 10). World economic outlook, October 2023. Available online: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2023/10/10/world-economic-outlook-october-2023 (accessed on 4 February 2025).
- Investopedia. Mental accounting. n.d. Available online: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mentalaccounting.asp (accessed on 16 March 2025).
- Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan, S. N., & Rauh, J. (2010). Wall street and main street: What contributes to the rise in the highest incomes? Review of Financial Studies, 23(3), 1004–1050. [Google Scholar]
- Kumar, P., Islam, M. A., Pillai, R., & Sharif, T. (2023). Analysing the behavioural, psychological, and demographic determinants of financial decision making of household investors. Heliyon, 9(2), e13085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 443–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S. (2014). The economic importance of financial literacy: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Literature, 52(1), 5–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lusardi, A., & Tufano, P. (2015). Debt literacy, financial experiences, and overindebtedness. Journal of Pension Economics & Finance, 14(4), 332–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malhotra, N., & Baag, P. K. (2023). Impact of financial literacy and peer influence on financial behavior of the members of the self-help groups: A pls sem-based study. IIMS Journal of Management Science, 14(1), 123–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Massey, C., Haisley, E., Kurkoski, J., & Choi, J. (2012). Nudges that nudge the savings rate. Available online: https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/nudges-nudge-savings-rate (accessed on 16 January 2025).
- Mikhed, V., & Scholnick, B. (2016). The causes of household bankruptcy: The interaction of income shocks and balance sheets. (Technical Report; FRB of Philadelphia Working Paper No. 16–19). Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2811564 (accessed on 23 December 2024).
- Ministry of Education, Finland. (2020). The impact of financial literacy education on household savings behavior. Journal of Economic Education, 42(2), 155–172. [Google Scholar]
- Mudholkar, R. S. (2011, November 25). Your expenses should not exceed one-third of your net income. The Economic Times. Available online: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/analysis/your-expenses-should-not-exceed-one-third-of-your-net-income/articleshow/10863332.cms?from=mdr (accessed on 23 December 2024).
- OECD. (2021). Advancing financial literacy: Global best practices and policy recommendations. (OECD Financial Policy Reports). OECD. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/finance/financial-education/ (accessed on 9 January 2025).
- Project, T. B. (2021). How chamas in kenya fight poverty. Available online: https://borgenproject.org/how-chamas-in-kenya-fight-poverty/.
- Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shefrin, H. M., & Thaler, R. H. (1988). The behavioral life-cycle hypothesis. Economic Inquiry, 26(4), 609–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, E., Moreira, R., & Bortolon, P. M. (2023). Mental accounting and decision making: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 107, 102092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thaler, R. H. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39–60. [Google Scholar]
- Thaler, R. H., & Shefrin, H. M. (1988). An economic theory of self-control. Journal of Political Economy, 89(2), 392–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The National Bankruptcy Review Commission. (1997). National bankruptcy review commission final report. Available online: https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/nbrc/report/05acons.html (accessed on 11 January 2025).
- Tirupattur, V., Chang, O., & Egan, J. (2010). Securitized credit: Abs market insights-understanding strategic defaults. (Technical Report). Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated. Available online: https://www.transunion.com/docs/rev/business/financialservices/FS_MorganStanleyStrategicDefaultResearch.pdf (accessed on 6 January 2025).
- TransUnion. (2025). 2025 Consumer credit forecast. Available online: https://newsroom.transunion.com/2025-Consumer-Credit-Forecast/ (accessed on 27 December 2024).
- Treasury, U. (2022). Matched savings programs and household financial stability. UK Financial Policy Review, 18, 45–60. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/get-help-savings-low-income (accessed on 26 December 2024).
- Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039–1061. [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023). Consumer expenditure surveys, public-use microdata (CSV format), 2018–2022. Available online: https://www.bls.gov/cex/pumd_data.htm#csv (accessed on 27 December 2024).
- U.S. Census Bureau. (2023). Wealth, asset ownership, and debt of households detailed tables (2018–2022). Available online: https://www.census.gov/data/tables.html (accessed on 22 December 2024).
Behavioral Bias | Description | Impact on Financial Decisions | How the 1/3 Rule Mitigates It |
---|---|---|---|
Loss Aversion (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) | People feel the pain of financial losses more than the joy of equivalent gains. | Individuals prioritize debt repayment excessively, neglecting savings and leading to cash shortages in emergencies. | Balanced allocation ensures debt repayment while simultaneously building savings, reducing the likelihood of financial distress. |
Overconfidence Bias (Barber & Odean, 2001) | People overestimate their ability to manage finances or predict future income. | Leads to under-saving and excessive spending, with individuals assuming they can “catch up later”. | Automated and equal savings allocation (1/3) ensures disciplined financial behavior, countering unrealistic optimism. |
Mental Accounting (Thaler & Shefrin, 1988) | People categorize money into different “mental accounts” and often overspend in one category while neglecting another. | Individuals spend discretionary income irresponsibly while failing to maintain emergency savings or pay off debt efficiently. | The 1/3 Rule enforces structured budgeting, reducing inefficient compartmentalization and ensuring equal attention to debt, savings, and expenses. |
Present Bias/Hyperbolic Discounting (Laibson, 1997) | People prioritize immediate rewards over long-term financial stability. | Leads to low savings rates and excessive debt accumulation, as future consequences are underestimated. | By enforcing proportional savings and debt repayment, the 1/3 Rule counteracts the tendency to prioritize short-term consumption. |
Anchoring Effect (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) | People rely too heavily on initial financial information (e.g., past spending habits). | Households may fail to adjust spending or debt repayment strategies even when income changes. | Fixed 1/3 allocation dynamically adjusts with income changes, ensuring sustainable financial planning. |
Status Quo Bias (Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988) | Preference for maintaining current financial habits, even when inefficient. | Households resist adopting new budgeting strategies, sticking to familiar but flawed methods like the 50/30/20 Rule. | The simplicity of the 1/3 Rule encourages long-term adoption, making it easier to implement and sustain. |
Sunk Cost Fallacy (Arkes & Blumer, 1985) | People continue investing in failing financial decisions due to past commitments. | Individuals hesitate to cut losses on bad investments or refinance high-interest debt, worsening financial stress. | The structured approach of the 1/3 Rule prioritizes rational debt repayment over emotional decision-making. |
Symbol | Meaning |
---|---|
I | Total available (after-tax) income |
D | Debt repayment portion of income |
S | Savings portion of income |
E | Living expenses portion of income |
Household utility function | |
Lagrange multiplier for the budget constraint | |
Debt-to-income ratio at time t | |
Savings-to-expense ratio at time t | |
Standard normal cumulative distribution function | |
Income volatility parameter at time t | |
Market volatility parameter at time t |
Dataset | Sample Size | Key Metrics Tracked | Time Frame |
---|---|---|---|
US Census Bureau: Wealth, Asset Ownership & Debt Tables | 30,000 households/wave | Income, savings, debt, net worth | 2018–2022 |
Consumer Expenditure Survey (CEX) | 7000–8000 households/quarter | Total household expenditures | 2018–2022 |
Derived Pseudo-Panel (Census + CEX) | Income-quintile merged panels | Budget adherence, savings, debt ratios | 2018–2022 |
Metric | 1/3 Rule | 50/30/20 Rule | 70/20/10 Rule |
---|---|---|---|
Debt Clearance | 4–4.6 years | 6–8 years | 7–10 years |
5-Year Savings | USD 74 k–USD 162 k | USD 30 k–USD 80 k | USD 20 k–USD 50 k |
Bankruptcy Risk | 20–30% reduction | 10–15% reduction | No significant change |
Emergency Fund (Months) | 6+ months | 3–4 months | 1–2 months |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Godbole, A.; Shah, Z.; Mudholkar, R.S. Preventing Household Bankruptcy: The One-Third Rule in Financial Planning with Mathematical Validation and Game-Theoretic Insights. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18040185
Godbole A, Shah Z, Mudholkar RS. Preventing Household Bankruptcy: The One-Third Rule in Financial Planning with Mathematical Validation and Game-Theoretic Insights. Journal of Risk and Financial Management. 2025; 18(4):185. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18040185
Chicago/Turabian StyleGodbole, Aditi, Zubin Shah, and Ranjeet S. Mudholkar. 2025. "Preventing Household Bankruptcy: The One-Third Rule in Financial Planning with Mathematical Validation and Game-Theoretic Insights" Journal of Risk and Financial Management 18, no. 4: 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18040185
APA StyleGodbole, A., Shah, Z., & Mudholkar, R. S. (2025). Preventing Household Bankruptcy: The One-Third Rule in Financial Planning with Mathematical Validation and Game-Theoretic Insights. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 18(4), 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18040185